The comparative study of citizenship regimes has reached a new stage. Several authors and research teams have constructed indicators and compound indices that allow comparing larger numbers of countries in more systematic ways. In his kickoff contribution for the EUDO CITIZENSHIP forum debate, Marc Helbling asks whether indicators that are constructed independently from each other, but often measure similar phenomena, are really useful. He suggests to distinguish between policy outputs and outcomes, naturalisation and rejection rates as well as simple and complex indicators. Nine authors respond to this challenge. Several among them propose that citizenship indicators serve different research purposes and some challenge the very idea of indicator-based evaluation of citizenship policies. Although this debate certainly does not concluded in consensus, Helbling’s rejoinder shows that the link between research purposes and methods has been clarified to a certain extent. By social science standards, this is not insignificant progress.

en

dc.description.tableofcontents

Which indicators are most useful for comparing citizenship policies? Marc Helbling
We need different indicators for different research questions David Reichel
Naturalisation rates and rejection rates measure different phenomena, and have different problems Maarten Vink
The of/for distinction Jan Willem Duyvendak, Rogier van Reekum, Peter Scholten, Christophe Bertossi
What we need citizenship indicators for depends on who are “we” Thomas Janoski
From politics to impact: How citizenship really works Thomas Huddleston
On the relevance of comprehensive comparative analyses at the subnational level Anita Manatschal
Concluding remarks Marc Helbling